Subscribe To

Monday, 2 January 2017

On Donald Trump

Cognitive
dissonance is a powerful drug. It makes otherwise-very-intelligent
people goofy and incoherent in their thinking and blinds them to
certain realities that they should normally see right in front of
their noses. I witness it all the time in the field of economics —
a key piece of logic, a key fact that certain people absolutely
refuse to take into account simply because they have a singular idea
of how the world works and they cannot allow that idea to ever come
into question. They would rather leap into a mental gymnastics
routine worthy of an Olympic gold medal than examine the truth. And
if you confront them on it, they’ll accuse YOU of being the one in
denial.

This is how we ended up with the credit crisis and
market crash of 2008/2009. This is how very few people saw the
writing on the wall with Syria and ISIS and the fact that the funding
and training of Islamic extremists by Western governments for the
purpose of proxy insurgency might not be such a great concept. It is
the reason why it took years for the mainstream to acknowledge the
advent of the East/West paradigm, the same paradigm that alternative
analysts warned about years in advance. This is why most mainstream
AND alternative analysts completely discounted a successful Brexit
referendum. And, it is why the vast majority of pundits could
not even conceive of a Trump victory in 2016. I could write a
list 20 pages long on all the geopolitical and fiscal developments
most people missed because they were clinging to assumptions rather
than evidence.

Unfortunately, the liberty movement is also
sometimes vulnerable to such assumptions. The most dangerous of which
revolve around the rise of President-elect Donald Trump.

I
have seen endless theories over the past several months on all the
ways in which the global elites would sabotage the Trump campaign. I
believe the phrase “they will never allow him to win” was
repeated in nearly every discussion on the election. The assumption
in this instance was that Trump is “anti-establishment” and,
therefore, a threat to the globalists. These are the same globalists
that people also claimed would “rig the election,” or initiate a
“coup” in the electoral college to stop a Trump presidency.

Of
course, this never happened. So, a large percentage of the movement
needs to question — why didn’t it happen? How did Trump win
within a system we know has been rigged for decades?

You’ll
hear hundreds of theories and rationalizations on Trump’s
miraculous victory, but a reason you will almost never hear is also
the most likely one: Trump won the election because he serves the
interests of the establishment. Trump won because he is a fake.

This
is not an idea that many liberty activists want to entertain. They
were so repulsed by the proposition of Hillary Clinton taking the
helm at the White House that they would have invested themselves in
almost ANYONE running against her, even if they thought that
candidate might be controlled opposition. However, not just anyone
was fielded as a candidate; Trump was fielded, and for good reason.
I predicted before the Republican and Democratic primaries that
the final election would be between Trump and Clinton in my
article Will
A Trump Presidency Really Change Anything For The Better?,
published in March, and here is a quote on why:"The
other ingenious aspect of the Trump campaign is really who he is
running against — Hillary Clinton, a rabidly liberal candidate even
more hated than Barack Obama. A candidate with a potentially serious
criminal record and a penchant for an outright communistic world view
far beyond that of Bernie Sanders. Those of us who have been in the
writing field for a long time and have dabbled in fiction know that
in order to create a fantastic hero, you must first put even more
work into creating a fantastic villain. The hero is nothing without
the villain.

The
unmitigated horror inherent in the prospect of a Hillary Clinton
presidency is like adding jet fuel to the Trump campaign. (And yes, I
am assuming according to the results of the primaries so far that the
final election will be between Trump and Clinton)."

My
point back then as well as now is that without Clinton as the
counter-party, Trump would not have garnered the political following
he did. Any other Democratic candidate would not have
galvanized conservatives so fervently. As I continued in my
pre-primaries article:“Donald
Trump appears to be the perfect antithesis to Hillary Clinton. …
the real question is, is Trump a reflection of the frustration and
defiance of the conservative population, or, is he a clever ruse by
the establishment to co-opt and placate the conservative population
before we rebel?”

The
staging of the 2016 election might have appeared to some people to be
absolute chaos, but to me, it could not have been more perfectly
scripted. In later articles covering the election I went on to give
Trump a chance. I stated that I had little doubt that he would
win the election and that this would be followed by an economic
crisis, probably triggered early in his first term. Conservative
movements would be set up as scapegoats for a crash the globalists
had created. However, I believed it (marginally) possible that Trump
was not aware of this strategy on the part of the elites. Today, I no
longer hold this view.

The first and worst sign that Trump is
not anywhere near “anti-establishment” has been his complete
reversal of his original “drain the swamp” rhetoric. Trump is not
only NOT draining the swamp that is the Washington D.C. and corporate
elitist revolving door, he is adding even more creatures of varying
ghoulishness. As Newt Gingrich, who describes himself as an
outside adviser to Trump, recently stated:“I’m
told he now just disclaims that…” [Draining
the swamp]
“He now says it was cute, but he doesn’t want to use it
anymore…”

There
is a good reason why Trump no longer wants to use that particular
slogan — his cabinet is now filled with the exact same elitists he
used to slam along with the Washington establishment.

Trump
first placed former Goldman Sachs partner Steven
Mnuchin as Treasury Secretary.
Goldman Sachs has a long history of insinuating its alumni into vital
positions within government bodies dealing directly with the economy.
Mnuchin is particularly troubling because of his ties to George
Soros; Mnuchin used to work directly for George Soros at Soros Fund
Management up until 2004.

Then, for those people that thought
maybe Mnuchin was just an anomaly, Trump added Gary Cohn, president
of Goldman Sachs, as the director of the National
Economic Council.

Trump’s
chief strategist and Breitbart executive Steve
Bannon is
also a former Goldman Sachs investment banker.

It is
interesting to note that over a quarter of the gains in the
delusional Dow Jones spike after Trump’s election was tied to a
rise in Goldman
Sachs stock value.
Imagine that…

Trump is also now “advised” on
economic matters by the likes of JP
Morgan’s Jamie Dimon.
Are we starting to get the picture here?

If that is not
enough, then how about the fact that Trump is being closely
advised by
long time globalist Henry Kissinger (just
as Vladimir Putin is
advised by Kissinger)?
I'm not sure why so many people are surprised by this
arrangement; Trump was meeting with Kissinger months
before the election.
No matter the administration, there is ALWAYS a high level globalist
behind the curtain. Barack Obama had Zbigniew Brzezinski, and
Trump and Putin have Kissinger.

I won’t go into the numerous
establishment Republicans that Trump has tapped for his
administration, I will save that can of worms for another article,
but anyone in the Liberty Movement that is not at least generally
suspicious of Trump at this point is probably kidding themselves.
The bottom line is, Trump has already LIED to his political
base. He has surrounded himself with globalists and financial
gatekeepers when he originally criticized Clinton for the same
behavior. At this point, as long as he working in close
proximity with such parasites there is no way for us to know if he is
calling the shots, or if his handlers are making decisions for
him.

I have heard it argued that Trump “has no choices”
outside of D.C. insiders, which is why his cabinet is loaded with
bottom feeders from Goldman Sachs. I find this argument rather naive.
I would argue that there are thousands of brilliant professionals and
people far more trustworthy outside of the beltway that could
populate Trump’s cabinet and “make America great again.” I
would even argue that ANY person with little experience inside the
D.C. corruption chamber would be better suited to the job.

It
seems to me that there are some activists that just can’t let go of
the notion that Trump was the candidate the elites wanted all along.
After all, didn’t the powers-that-be do everything in their
power to try and stop him from winning the election?

Well, not
really. The media firestorm surrounding Trump, though highly
negative in tone, only boosted Trump’s exposure throughout the
election. In fact, Trump received more coverage from outlets
like CNN than
all the other candidates combined.

This was the exact opposite
tactic that the elitist controlled media used against true liberty
candidate Ron Paul in 2012. With Paul, the media went out of their
way to ignore him; they even refused to show a single Ron Paul
campaign sign in a crowd if they could avoid it. This was a concerted
systematic effort on the part of left AND right wing media outlets to
ensure that no one outside of the internet heard about Ron Paul.

So
what happened with Trump? Why did the mainstream media abandon a
strategy that was very effective against Ron Paul, and why did they
give Trump endless free coverage?

The elites also did not take
very stringent measures to disrupt Trump’s candidacy early in the
race. The Republican National Convention undertook a campaign of
disinformation and rule changes in order to ensure that Ron Paul
would have no chance of organizing an upset against establishment
choice Mitt Romney. The same exact kind of treachery was used by the
DNC in 2016 to sabotage Bernie Sanders — arguably a far more
popular and effective candidate than Hillary Clinton. The party
elites have numerous tools at their disposal to kill a candidate’s
chances before he or she ever makes it on the national stage, yet, we
are supposed to believe that Trump just slipped through the cracks,
or beat them at their own game? I think not.

The
election itself was riddled with email leaks and data dumps
showcasing the corruption of the Clinton campaign, and yes, this did
help to ensure a Trump win. The accusations of “Russian hacking”
is clearly a sideshow, but the question remains, who did feed that
information to Wikileaks? Some theorize that “disgruntled
employees” within the U.S. intelligence apparatus may have leaked
the data. I think they were not disgruntled. I think that most of the
leaks were part of the election theater from the very beginning. In
light of Trump’s clear goal to entrench banking vampires within his
administration, I think that the elites always intended for him to
“win” the election.

Of course, for some in the liberty
movement this claim is sacrilegious. They don’t want to hear it,
they’ll hate me for saying it, and that’s fine. I started
my work in 2006 during the Bush years, and I remember quite well what
it was like. I have little doubt that some people will be
accusing me of being a "liberal" before they even finish
this article, just as people called me a "Neo-Con" during
the Obama administration. People who held fast to "conspiracy
theories" surrounding the election and how Clinton was the
"chosen one" will now hypocritically call me a "conspiracy
theorist" for pointing out that NO ONE gets into the White House
without being vetted by the elites, even Trump.

Working in
alternative media means not caring if people like you or dislike you.
I’ve been able to make numerous correct predictions because I do
not concern myself with the pressures of conforming to group-think.
My only hope is that many in the movement realize sooner rather than
later that their faith in Trump has been ill invested. The great
danger is that the liberty movement, the best last chance for saving
this nation, will sit on its collective hands idle, centralizing all
their hopes and eggs into the Trump basket, waiting for him to gallop
in on his white horse and save us all from oblivion. And when that
time comes, I suspect that he will do nothing, and the movement will
be neutralized by its own desperate desire for a hero and an idol.